IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/eucflr/v15y2018i1p69-100n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of the Prospectus Regime: The EU Reforms and the ‘Brexit’ Factor

Author

Listed:
  • Howell Elizabeth

    (Slaughter and May Lecturer in Corporate Law, Faculty of Law, Cambridge. I am grateful to the ECFR referees for their valuable comments. The paper has also benefitted from feedback following a presentation at a Cambridge Law Faculty workshop in November 2017. The usual disclaimers apply.Faculty of Law, CambridgeCambridgeUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

Abstract

‘Brexit’ creates significant new challenges; it risks placing the UK’s position as a leading capital markets centre in jeopardy, and it places existing, long-established market access arrangements in doubt. Yet, it also creates opportunities. In particular, the UK could have the ability going forward, should it so wish, to extricate itself from the EU’s prospectus regime. Indeed, the UK is especially well-equipped in this regard, given the dominant role it plays in global and EU capital markets, and given that, historically, the UK has been closely involved with, and a key influence in the design of EU regulations, both with respect to capital markets, and more generally in relation to financial regulation. Accordingly, via an analysis of the existing prospectus framework, and the recently revamped EU rules, this paper contributes to the existing scholarship on prospectuses and considerswhat could, or should, happen to the UK’s prospectus regime following Brexit. It examines three possibilities and it advocates an ‘equivalence-plus’ approach. Specifically, it speculates that this option is most likely to guarantee the prospectus serves as a valuable investor protection device, as well as providing an attractive fundraising vehicle for firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Howell Elizabeth, 2018. "An Analysis of the Prospectus Regime: The EU Reforms and the ‘Brexit’ Factor," European Company and Financial Law Review, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 69-100, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:69-100:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/ecfr-2018-0003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2018-0003
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ecfr-2018-0003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:69-100:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.